Posted on 02/28/2006 6:36:43 PM PST by Aussie Dasher
US President George W. Bush signalled his opposition to a South Dakota abortion ban that forbids the procedure even in cases of rape or incest, saying he favors such exceptions.
But Bush declined to predict the outcome of any legal challenges to the legislation, which would make it illegal to terminate a pregnancy except in rare cases when it may be necessary to save the life of the mother.
"That, of course, is a state law, but my position has always been three exceptions: Rape, incest, and the life of the mother," the US president told ABC news in an interview.
Asked whether he would include "health" of the mother, Bush replied: "I said life of the mother, and health is a very vague term, but my position has been clear on that ever since I started running for office."
The bill, which recently gained final approval from South Dakota's House of Representatives, directly contradicts the precedent set in 1973 when the US Supreme Court ruled that bans on abortion violate a woman's constitutional right to privacy.
The bill grants no allowances for women who have been raped or are victims of incest. Doctors who perform abortion would be charged with a crime. It also prohibits the sale of emergency contraception and asserts that life begins at fertilization.
The governor of South Dakota has indicated he is likely to sign the bill.
A leading pro-choice advocacy group has already vowed to challenge the ban in federal court. But that seems to be exactly what many promoters of the legislation seek.
Advocates of the ban do not deny they aim much higher than South Dakota, a rural and socially conservative state, which even today has only one abortion clinic.
Instead, they are hoping the bill will offer a full frontal assault on legal abortions now that the balance of power in the Supreme Court appears to have shifted with the confirmation of conservative jurists John Roberts and Samuel Alito, both of whom are seen as pro-life.
I consider it akin to murder.
And yet I would not be honest with you, or myself if I said I approved of the ALL-POWERFUL STATE forcing a rape victim to give birth to a child she did not consent to creating.
I understand other's passion on this issue, and I respect them. I just wish people would step back for a moment and hear me out on this one...
(All sarcasm aside), I do admire your candor.
The issue isn't Bush's consistency as much as it is about the consistent view he has.
How often is the doctor present when either takes place. Medical trauma is what is in front of him and what he is competent to treat.
Apparently you do when the baby's father is a moral reprobate.
A child is supposed to be the end result of love between a man and woman - the married type.
So a child conceived out of wedlock or as a result of rape is less human than one conceived in marriage?
What you are saying makes absolutely no sense.
Please show me where. I say a child has a right to life regardless of who the father is. What about this argument makes no sense?
A woman gets raped, and she is commited to carrying the pregenancy through - ?
Being a raped does not confer a liscense for murder.
And BTW, the rapist is called a "RAPIST", not "the childs father".
So you think rapists can't be fathers? You need to sit down with your mom and have a talk about the birds and the bees.
IMHO - Yes, abortion is fully acceptable in cases of health concerns for the mother and......
RAPE.
Can you provide a logical basis for this humble opinion?
You want to condem the mother TO ACCEPT what an asshole did to her ?
She was raped. It's the reality, and having an abortion doesn't change it.
You have a big bustle in your hedgerow, get it straightened out - ASAP.
No you're the one with the problem. You obviously form your opinions based on emotion and not logic.
ANd since you are kind of going down a Christian road here, the Bible says that to those who see evil occuring (and know it's evil) and do nothing, that too is evil. To let evil run roughshod over the innocent and sit idly by is sin.
here comes Mississippi
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1587554/posts
ban all abortions except for life of mother provision.
A rapist cannot be a "father" in any way but biology. I think both sides of this argument can agree on that.
Last time I checked, even the most extreme libertarians considered protecting innocents from murder to be a legitimate exercise of state power.
Don't forget about "statutory rape".
I hear you. I just don't agree with you. If abortion were illegal in cases of rape the state is not forcing the woman to carry the child. Biology is what causes the pregnancy to exist. Regardless of the law it is the woman's conscience that determines whether she will carry the baby or kill it. You are turning cause and effect on its head when you lay blame on the state for a law that simply protects life.
It is unfortunate to say that evil cannot be eradicated by human hands alone, for we are intrinsically sinful creatures. Even though we have the capacity for good, we also have the capacity for evil.
Evil will only be eradicated by the Second Coming.
And I had a typo in my big post; I'm a guy, not a girl. X3
>>>Would you still support the "no exception stance" if it was your wife who was raped?
>>Support it? I'd demand it with all the husbandly authority I had to wield.
Just out of curiosity...how would you deal with the crackfiend/psycho/lowlife rapist who manages to win visitation rights in court?
Obviously. I fail to see what this has to do with the matter at hand, though, since I was using the word "father" in the strict biological sense.
No one should be denied any rights simply because her biological father is a rapist.
No. I'm dead serious. Do you have any substantive arguments, or are you just going to argue from incredulity?
What about statutory rape? Why should some 25 year old creep get the right to call him a father after raping a 14 year old?
"Easy for you to say and to judge. I imagine not so easy a decision for a rape victim."
You're NOT PAYING ATTENTION!
Your imagery is powerful. Ominous men in black, forcing rape victims to give birth under threat of prison. I can see them now, standing with the hand cuffs, saying "You WILL have that child!"
Scary. It exists only in the imagination, but imagination can be powerful.
I can also see something else. I see babies. I can see their sensitive skin burned by salt. Skin so sensitive it is like one big open wound. And I can see them drowning in saline.
I can see other babies shrinking, trying to escape a sharp blade. Screaming. Silently.
You can see it too. It's happened millions of times. They even have it on video. You don't even need an imagination. Just a conscience.
him=himself- it's getting late...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.